Some Philosophy

Epicurus versus Zeno Context Epicurus (341–270 BC) first came to Athens from the island of Samos when he was 18 to serve the military apprenticeship necessary to retain his Athenian citizenship. Xenocrates was then the third head of the Academy; Aristotle was still alive but in retirement abroad. Epicurus was a follower of the down-to-earth philosophy of Democritus of Abdera, of whom we heard earlier as the mentor of Protagoras. As such, he was a life-long opponent of Plato, against whose ideas he rebelled at the tender age of 14. Although his origins were humble, Epicurus eventually established a philosophical school in Mytilene on the island of Lesbos, but he and his followers were expelled as a result of the civic unrest to which their teachings apparently led. The school moved to Lampsacus, where he acquired Metrodorus as a friend and disciple, and then to Athens. In Athens, Epicurus bought a house with a walled garden—on the road from the Agora to the Academy—where he established a school called the Garden set up in explicit opposition to Platonism. Perhaps as a result of his unpleasant experiences in Mytilene, his followers in Athens played little or no role in Athenian social and political life. Epicurus was a hedonist, a materialist, an empiricist, and a relativist. He was most famous in the ancient world for espousing the doctrine earlier attributed to Diogenes that our souls do not survive our deaths—so that we need not fear the miserable afterlife in which the Greeks believed. Nor do we need fear any gods there may be, as they take no interest in human affairs. Perhaps it was this feature of Epicureanism that made it the leading philosophy in the ancient world for some six hundred years—but it was not the epicureanism of modern dictionaries. The idea that he revelled in gluttony and lust was an invention of his philosophical enemies, enthusiastically adopted by the early Christian Church in their urge to find reasons to discredit their major opponent. Zeno (334?–262 BC) of Citium—the founder of Stoicism—is sometimes confused with Zeno of Elea, whose Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise was mentionedearlier. Our Zeno was of Phoenician origin, born of a wealthy merchant family in Citium on Cyprus. He is said to have been dark-skinned and gaunt in appearance. He famously came across Xenophon’s memoir of Socrates in an Athenian bookshop. He asked the bookseller where such philosophers were to be found today, and the bookseller pointed out Crates the Cynic who happened to be passing by. Someone less suited than the introverted Zeno to the extravagant rejection of conventional mores practiced by the followers of Diogenes would be difficult to find, but he persevered in his philosophical studies with a variety of other mentors in addition to Crates, and eventually founded a fourth school of philosophy in Athens alongside the Academy, the Lyceum, and the Garden. It met in a portico in the Agora called the Stoa. For this reason, Zeno’s followers eventually became known as Stoics. Only fragments survive of the actual writings either of Zeno or Epicurus. In the case of Epicurus, this is not very surprising since his many books were sought out, and systematically destroyed by the Church. Since the teachings of both Zeno and Epicurus advocated a similar ascetic life-style in which adepts learned to treat the vicissitudes of life as largely irrelevant to their equanimity, it seems odd that Stoicism should have escaped the same kind of persecution. Perhaps the fact that it became the standard philosophical position of the elite of the Roman Empire has something to do with this (although its best exposition is to be found in the works of Epictetus, who was a freed slave). In any case, there is a good reason why we nowadays refer to the virtues espoused by the Stoics as Roman. Dialogue Hearing of the fact that Zeno of Citium had recently established a school of philosophy that met in Athen’s Agora, Epicurus unusually joined one of his freed slaves on a marketing expedition, accompanied by Metrodorus, his most faithful follower. There they found Zeno in the Stoa debating philosophical issues with a bunch of his students. After some awkwardness, Epicurus and Zeno fell into conversation, strolling up and down in the shade of the famous colonnade in the classic style of the time. We join them as their followers listen with bated breath, although it takes the two great minds some time to get around to serious issues. EPICURUS: I do not often come to the Agora, but having learned of your habit of meeting with like-minded thinkers in the Stoa, I thought I might join your students to learn what philosophical line you are pursuing nowadays. When we last encountered each other, you were a somewhat introverted student uncomfortably following the precepts of the skeptic Crates. ZENO: It is true, Epicurus, that I was less sure of myself in those days, and uncomfortable with the antics that Crates had inherited from Diogenes to demonstrate his freedom from the conventions that constrain ordinary folk. I am still of the opinion that those of us who follow Socrates in seeking to live an examined life should put aside the aspirations that motivate most of our fellow men, but there is no needto make a show of our beliefs. I think that we are so far in agreement. Where we differ is in my conviction that we should devote our lives to the pursuit of virtue. Your reported hedonism seems repugnant to me. EPICURUS: I think, Zeno, that we are closer than you imagine. My hedonism is not at all the mindless pursuit of pleasure advocated by such as Aristippus of Cyrene. METRODORUS: Alas that my brother Timocrates should shamefully have taken to misrepresenting Epicurus after his expulsion from our group! He hates Epicurus for supposedly alienating my affections from our family. I fear that others have taken up the same slanders to discredit Epicurus’s philosophy. Gluttony and lust play no part in our little community at the Garden. In fact, Epicurus eats little beyond barley bread and some occasional cheese. As for sex, he teaches that it is better avoided, but probably does no harm. ZENO: Is it not true that your community welcomes both women and slaves as full members? For what purpose are women included? EPICURUS: Women are not included for immoral purposes. Metrodorus’ wife Themista, for example, is the intellectual equal of us all. We exclude nobody on the grounds of social status or sex. We understand that ordinary folk will not approve of our lack of respect for their social mores, but we try not to provoke their enmity unnecessarily by staying clear of the social and political life of Athens. ZENO: I hope, Epicurus, that you will forgive my having listened to common gossip. I see that your style of life is in fact close to the ascetic ideal that I have come to prize. We both teach that what matters is the attitude to life that one can achieve through rational reflection. A true philosopher is immune to the sufferings that trouble our fellow human beings once he has learned that we can only genuinely be injured by what we choose to perceive as an injury. It is not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters. We must not seek the good in external things, but in ourselves. EPICURUS: I sometimes say that the wealth required by nature is limited and easy to procure; but the wealth required by vain ideals extends to infinity. I am perhaps not so fierce in my defence of asceticism as you seem to be, but we certainly hold very similar views on how best to live one’s life. Where I think we may differ is in the goals to which we believe philosophers should aspire. What, may I ask, is your conception of virtue? ZENO: There is just one simple Good. Happiness is to be achieved by using one’s Reason to conform to the Universal Logos that governs everything. Living a life according to Reason generates a consistency of soul, from which morally Good actions flow. A bad feeling is a disturbance of the mind repugnant to Reason, and against Nature. This is my conception of Virtue. EPICURUS: I agree, Zeno, that we would do well to live according to the laws of nature that one might perhaps describe as the universal logos. I agree also that we should use our reason to this end as best we can. But what argument leads to the conclusion that there is only one Good that determines the character of Virtue? How do we know what actions Reason will count as Virtuous? ZENO: I do not follow the Cynics in denying that actions which aid the natural instinct for self-preservation have value, but they do not contribute to happiness, which depends only on moral actions. Even passive mental states or emotions that are not guided by Reason are immoral, and produce immoral actions. The negative emotions are desire, fear, pleasure and sorrow. The positive emotions are will, caution and joy. EPICURUS: I hope, Zeno, that you will not be offended when I say that your answer evades the question in a manner similar to religious folk when they are asked why they believe in Zeus rather than Mazda like the Persians, or Ra like the Egyptians. One receives in reply the answer to some other question. I agree that happiness is to be found by living in accordance with the laws of nature, but an empiricist like myself believes that we can know the laws of nature that apply to human happiness only through our senses. It seems to me that our senses tell us to seek pleasure and avoid pain. ZENO: How can you know for certain how best to live if you rely only on your senses? We must use our Reason to perceive the Truth. Even an empiricist like yourself must surely see the folly into which the kind of sensuality you advocate so often leads the young. EPICURUS: You play with words by choosing to interpret my reliance on the senses as sensuality. It is true that younger folk will often disagree, but the wisdom that comes with age leads me to favor a life of tranquility that emphasises the avoidance of pain. You are correct that empiricists cannot know with certainty that there may not be a better way to live, but empiricists believe that nothing can be known with the certainty that philosophers sometimes claim. However, I would very much like to hear how your conception of Reason leads to the conclusion that to experience pleasure is incompatible with Virtue. ZENO: I do not think, Epicurus, that it can be explained to somebody who fails to see that we can perceive with the mind as well as with our bodily senses. EPICURUS: The same answer that Plato would perhaps have given! Here we must agree to disagree. It is a pity that two philosophers who have so much in common in what we believe about the practicalities of living the examined life should differ so much about the reasons why. ZENO: Our conversation has at least taught me not to believe the slanders that circulate about what goes on in your Garden. I still find it hard to credit that women or slaves might have anything to contribute to a serious philosophical discussion, but here again we must agree to disagree. So the two parted on good terms but without any genuine meeting of minds. The future was to mirror their fault line. Some Stoics like Marcus Aurelius wrote of Epicureans with respect, but others like Seneca chose to repeat the slanders that Zeno accepts are false in our imaginary dialogue.